What follows is an excerpt from the court appearance which preceded the court's agreement with the defendants (New York Post, Jack Newfield, etc.) to throw this case out and to prevent this case from going to a public trial.
The date was March 20, 1996.

"THE COURT: Now, the complaint is interesting, because the only allegation is what Ms. Shabazz said.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: Your Honor, the complaint consists of more than what Ms. Shabazz said. The complaint is primarily predicated on two defamatory headline banners that the defendants published, and there is a big difference between those headlines and what Dr. Shabazz actually said. The New York Post printed a headline article saying, 'Widow pins Malcolm X murder on Farrakhan.' But, your Honor, if you look at the text of the interview between Dr. Shabazz and Gabe Pressman, you will see that she made a very vague response to a very vague question. We have outlined in our briefs and in the affidavit the events leading up to this article. There was contact between Gabe Pressman and Channel 7 and Jack Newfield of the New York Post. And it interesting to note that the articles actually preceded the broadcasting of the interview. Mr. Newfield has a history-

"THE COURT: What is the relevance of that?

"MS. MUHAMMAD: The relevance of that is constitutional malice, your Honor. They have stated in their papers that the only remaining issue is malice.

They have admitted that they published the libel statements, they admitted it because they can't deny it. They have accused Minister Farrakhan of murder.

There is nothing vague about that.

"THE COURT: But Minister Farrakhan then said that he was partly guilty of this murder.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: No, ma'am, your Honor. Mr. Farrakhan has stated that he was led into a climate that ultimately led to the assassination. That is not criminal responsibility that the defendants have attempted to place on the Minister and they deliberately attempted to convey by using such language as fingered, accused, pinned, these are all vernacular terms that they know their readership interprets as meaning criminal behavior. You will note, also, Your Honor, that Mr. Newfield, in his affidavit, and they are required under 3212 to submit an affidavit from people with personal knowledge of the facts, Mr. Newfield quotes himself, he quotes previous defamatory statements that he's made about the Minister, and then he relies on books and articles whose authors in turn rely on opinions.

"We, under the law have a right to review and bring in front of this court evidence of the state of mind of the defendants in printing these articles.

They have produced nothing from the editors of the paper. Your Honor, Mr. Newfield did not write the headline, he wrote the column. And you will note that in their initial motion papers, they made no reference to the headlines at all. They attempted to put a face on the innuendo and the lies that they had in the article itself. For example, Mr. Newfield wrote, Minister Farrakhan was in Newark that day, the date of the assassination when we was supposed to be in Boston. What is the criterion for concluding that Minister Farrakhan was supposed to be in Boston?

"That is innuendo that feeds into this claim that he was, according to the headline, not involved in a criminal way, but probably knew the shooter. Not only was he conspiratorially involved in a criminal way, but he was actually actively involved. Mr. Minister Farrakhan was in Newark, and it's known to them, because they claim to have the FBI files. He was in Newark, because the Honorable Elijah Muhammad instructed him to be there. When Malcolm X was suspended from his position as Minister of Mosque Number 7 for disobedience to instructions from the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, there was a rotation from the Newark Mosque. The Newark minister was moved into number seven here in New York to teach the lectures. And while the Newark Mosque was without a minister, the East Coast Mosque of which Boston was one was required to take turns going in on Sundays to teach the lectures.

"So on that particular Sunday, the Sunday February 21, the date of the assassination, Minister Farrakhan was required by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad to take his turn on the rostrum. They placed that in the article to give an innuendo to it. Another statement they made was-

"THE COURT: So is it your position this is libel, innuendo?

"MS. MUHAMMAD: No, our position is that the headlines in and of themselves constitute libel per se, because under New York law, anytime you make a statement about an individual that guilt of which would constitute a criminal offense, that is deemed to be libel per se. However, your Honor, we are also saying that they are further guilty of libel by innuendo by virtue of additional defamatory falsehoods that they set forth in the article itself.

"So we are speaking of the front page banner, the page two banner and the article itself. Mr. Newfield also makes reference to a statement allegedly made by a gentleman named Charles 37X, Kenyatta, who allegedly had a conversation with a man named Yusuf Shah, who is now deceased as they quote the deceased as saying that Minister Farrakhan was personally involved in the assassination. The article primarily constitutes of hearsay, but I think it is critical for the court to note that the headlines which Mr. Newfield is not the author, there are no affidavits from the defendants supporting the basis for those headlines, there is nothing from the editors, there is nothing from any of the staff of the New York Post that could have been involved in the editorial process, which would allow the plaintiffs to probe the issue of what the state of mind of the defendants was at the time of the publication.

"And I think it is very important, your Honor, to point out that there was a rush to publish this article prior to the airing of the interview itself. The reason for that is because once the public heard the interviews themselves, they would never have assigned the sinister and libelous meaning that the Post did. So the Post rushed to put the article out a day ahead, a day ahead of the interview itself. Mr. Newfield has a history of doing that.

"Since 1985, he has followed Minister Farrakhan around the country, not physically, but in terms of lectures and writes articles and stories on what is about to be said before it is said.

Minister Muhammad went on to point out that Newfield wrote a story on a video film, that was against the Honorable Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, before the video ever was made available to the public.

She continued that:

"So, there, we have a pattern of malice, and there are too many open issues. They have failed pursuant to 3212 to resolve this conflict by supplying the court with affidavits by people who have personal knowledge of the facts.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: Your Honor, in our supporting affidavit, we submitted an affidavit that was prepared by my counsel, co-counsel, Arif Muhammad, and in it he sets forth the amazing volumes of-

"THE COURT: Where is the knowing falsehood or the reckless disregard?

"MS MUHAMMAD: Yes, ma'am. The knowing falsehood lies in Mr. Newfield's awareness of the overwhelming evidence of who in fact was responsible for the assassination of Malcolm X. Above and beyond the fact that there have been convictions and people have served sentences for this assassination, everyone, everyone, every writer, every scholar, every author that ever spoke or addressed the subject of this assassination always made reference to the involvement of the New York City Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"In fact, in the very videotape that Mr. Newfield-

"THE COURT: I am going to stop you there, I asked you to tell me where we arrived at reckless disregard, and talking about the Police Department doesn't do it.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: Okay. Your Honor, in the affidavit from Thomas Hayer, who is one of the confessed assassins of Malcolm X, we have in our papers an affidavit from William Kunstler, that directly contradicts that. My point, your Honor, is that Mr. Newfield -

"THE COURT: I looked for the affidavit, even though it's referenced, it's not present in the papers.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: We would submit you another copy, I don't know why that is not in there. But Mr. Kunstler, who was interviewed in these videotapes stated in his affidavit that never at any time did Mr. Hayer make any reference to the involvement of Minister Farrakhan. My point is this, your Honor. Mr. Newfield knew when he wrote this article that Minister Farrakhan had no involvement.

"THE COURT: It doesn't do it for me for you to tell me what he knew. What I need is what, and I keep asking you this, this is the third time I am asking you.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: Yes, your Honor.

"THE COURT: Is what you are basing the knowing falsehood or the reckless disregard on. I am talking about facts, not what you say that Mr. Newfield knew.

"MS. MUHAMMAD: Yes, we are basing it on what he says in his affidavit, that he had access to, Mr. Newfield claims to have. been following the assassination closely for thirty years.

"And what we have submitted is that if in fact he has been following this assassination for thirty years, there is no way he could be ignorant of -- it's inconceivable that he could arrive at a conclusion or conclusions that he set forth in that article, and in there lies the malice.

"We have also shown a pattern of writings with regard to Minister Farrakhan where he talks about detesting him, and we have demonstrated a pattern of such conduct in his writings with reference to Minister Farrakhan.

"Your Honor, there was nothing said about Minister Farrakhan from 1964 to 1985, but in 1985, when Minister Farrakhan came to New York and filled Madison Square Garden, the smear campaign began against him, and Mr. Newfield as well as his employer, the New York Post, I don't understand why it's being said the editors are not being sued.

"What we are saying is that the state of mind in publishing this involves those who made the decision to make it a headline. But it is clear by virtue of his own claim to be an expert on the assassination of Malcolm X, when Mr. Newfield printed this story, he knew it was false or he had reckless disregard for whether or not it was false, because the object of the article was to defame Minister Farrakhan. It was not to probe the truth and it was not to place an issue in the public debate.

"THE COURT: All right, thank you all very much." (Whereupon, court stood in recess for the day in this matter.) Now let us look into the material which Minister Ava Muhammad referred to in these words: "... my ... co-counsel, Arif Muhammad ... sets forth the amazing volumes of ... " .

In his presentation, we'll see another major aspect of this ongoing conspiracy. We'll also see how all of this ties into the reality of the concept of the Messiah as it pertains to this case.

I intend to also demonstrate that if this case went to trial, Black people (and the world) would be presented, in a court of law, which might be televised the world over, a trial in which evidence might be presented showing how deadly viruses (AIDS, Ebola and others) are definitely a part of the plot to destroy Minister Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and others.

There is a plan already in effect to blame a part of the virus plague on Muslims-believe it or not.
More next issue, Allah willing.